Another Kalifornia proposed law
California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012 By Bernie Woodall
Tue Jan 30, 9:05 PM ET
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.
"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."
Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.
If passed, it would be another pioneering environmental effort in California, the most populous U.S. state. It became the first state to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.
Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world's biggest retailer said in November.
While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.
"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."
Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.
About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.
A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.
Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said.
California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.
While not commenting specifically on Levine's likely legislation, Rosenfeld, winner of the Enrico Fermi Presidential Award in 2006, said the switch from incandescent bulbs became feasible about five years ago when CFL performance improved.
"This is clearly an idea whose time has come," he said.
Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys in Los Angeles, last year introduced a bill that will become law in July that requires most grocery stores to have plastic bag recycling.
Tue Jan 30, 9:05 PM ET
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.
"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."
Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.
If passed, it would be another pioneering environmental effort in California, the most populous U.S. state. It became the first state to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.
Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world's biggest retailer said in November.
While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.
"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."
Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.
About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.
A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.
Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said.
California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.
While not commenting specifically on Levine's likely legislation, Rosenfeld, winner of the Enrico Fermi Presidential Award in 2006, said the switch from incandescent bulbs became feasible about five years ago when CFL performance improved.
"This is clearly an idea whose time has come," he said.
Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys in Los Angeles, last year introduced a bill that will become law in July that requires most grocery stores to have plastic bag recycling.
0
-
...anything and everthing to blame business and the people.
...the same twits scream and holler against more drilling.
The pipeline was going to destroy the enviroment when it was built...these people have way too much time on their hands.
Kalifornia is a good example of PC crap run amuck.[xx(]
These idiots are the first to scream about government intruding into their homes, their private lives...go figure...[;)]
0 -
I like the general idea. My entire house is lit by CFLs except for the oven, fridge and garage door opener [:D] I don't know about power savings, but it is comforting to have to get the ladder out only once every 4 months or so rather than once every 2-3 weeks [:p] 0 -
[8D]-All of my house/garage lighting has been CFL for 3/4 years--
--[:D][:D]--JIMBO0 -
I like it.
The more energy we save, the less money we send to the ragheads.
I'm not a fan of California but even a broken watch is right twice a day0 -
i think the government should control EVERYTHING we do 0 -
Yeah Great!
CFL's contain mercury!
Haha
Which is worse using for coal fuel or mercury in the dumps????0 -
Pssssssst.... hey buddy... (opens trenchcoat)... wanna buy a conventional lightbulb? Shhhh.... not too loud, the cops may hear! You'll take 2 you say, that'll be 50 bucks. Nice doing business with you. [:D] 0 -
If they REALLY wanted to save energy, when a business closes for the day- TURN THE FREAKIN' LIGHTS OFF ! Yeah, understand light= security- but drive down the street at 1 AM and check out the SIGNS that are lit up. Try to find a place- even in the country- that does not have a mercury vapor dusk-to-dawn burning. 0 -
I don't have a mercury vapor light. I have dogs and guns.
LCD lightbulbs use 1 percent of the power of conventional bulbs for equivalant light output.
I kinda wonder what the various governments are going to do to replace lost tax revenue when we all use all the types of conservation available to us.
Also, the companies which supply us with the energy will need to make up for lost profits.
I wonder if it is a coincidence that, as cars became more fuel efficient, both the cost of the fuel and the tax on the fuel rose.
Any thoughts?
Maybe when Kalifornia has everyone using flourescents, they will decide that the REALLY way to go is LCDs
D.0 -
Ben using them for over 2 years. First as a tryout program. Left a 60
watt one for 24/7 for two years and still going strong. Our local Stop and Shop Supermarket had them on sale for .99 cents (G,E,'s) in any size so bought a shopping full. Great when on generator power as they only use one third of the amps. With 8000 hr. life it sure does beat changing bulbs in hard to get at to places. Most seem to have a quater
of a second delay to light which one finally gets used to. Greatest thing since they put ears on a hound dog.0 -
Along this same line, I was watching something on TV and they were getting all excited about alternative energy sources. It got me to wondering if maybe we are forgetting a lesson from our not so distant past. We used a lot of fossil fuels and then someone started saying that we were ruining the enviroment. Could the same thing be true for wind power and for tidal power. The first law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in the universe is constant. You can't create energy, only transfer it from one form to another. So what happens when you remove kinetic energy form the wind and tranfer it into electicity? What effects does this have on weather patterns? Are any of these anti-fossil fuel treehuggers doing any enviromental impact studies on this? Any energy removed from the system is going to have consequences, many of which are impossible to accurately predict. 0 -
Some of those fluro blubs cost WAY too much. If you buy a bunch of regular bulbs and add up the hours of burn to just one of the fluro bulbs of the price you spent on both items; it probably will be the same exact thing or very close to it.
Doesnt that just p-you off when fluro bulbs take so long to light up.
I heard something about you cant spank your disobident son; cant smoke in certian cities; and the light bulb thing in commiefornia. Whats next; suprisingly lean jail time for child offenders?0 -
tyson - you should start a new thread on this subject. It's important and people in general have no idea about the totality of these technologies.
D.0 -
What about my Lava lamp? a high efficiency one wont put off enough heat to melt the wax.
This will be the bane of college students everywhere trying to set the mood using the only cool thing to come out of the 70's.0 -
lets ban everything and take our choices out of the equation 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
I don't have a mercury vapor light. I have dogs and guns.
LCD lightbulbs use 1 percent of the power of conventional bulbs for equivalant light output.
I kinda wonder what the various governments are going to do to replace lost tax revenue when we all use all the types of conservation available to us.
Also, the companies which supply us with the energy will need to make up for lost profits.
I wonder if it is a coincidence that, as cars became more fuel efficient, both the cost of the fuel and the tax on the fuel rose.
Any thoughts?
Maybe when Kalifornia has everyone using flourescents, they will decide that the REALLY way to go is LCDs
D.
Dont you mean 'LED's', or is that something different?0 -
Have you seen the price of them (fluro lights) at home depot? Some of them a a bit too pricy.
I did however find a sale of those christmas lights, and have been using the clear ones in those hallway lights. About the same wattage, and way cheaper than the night light bulbs.0 -
I like the idea, HOWEVER I don't like the idea of the Gov. forcing it. A good place to start would be street lights and public buildings. 0 -
Ooops. LEDs is correct. Thanks for steering me straight.
Sorry.
D.0 -
CFL won't work with most dimmer switches but otherwise their technology and energy savings are way ahead of incandecsent lamps. This is like the phasing out carburetors for electronic fuel injection; fuel injection is so superior for use in road vehicles that there is no comparison. Of course on Gun Broker, changes of any kind are considered a threat to the American way of life until proven otherwise. If the incandecsent was good enough for old Tom Edison then it should still be good enough for us! 0 -
Let's see.... if all people in the US changed out all their old bulbs for the CFL bulbs and that resulted in a 70% energy savings for just lighting that would reduce the amount of oil we need to import by a fairly noticable amount. Yea, this idea just sucks. Making America more self reliant and not spending more money on overseas oil, who came up with this crazy idea.
Anyone opposed to this as an idea is just nuts. I've been saying for years that we should only produce these bulbs in the US and mandate everyone use them. I HATE big government but this is a good idea.0 -
Fear of technology runs rampant here. I am waiting for someone to tell us how CFL will put thousands of American light bulb assembly workers out of jobs. CFL's last four to six time longer than conventional lamps, which means that you'll purchase fewer of them so fewer workers will be needed to produce them. This will lead to economic disaster...Just wait and see. No one here wants to conserve engery jaflowers, they just want to invade (or nuke) oil rich nations or punish anyone who might cause a hike in the price of oil and make gasoline more expensive than it "should be"...which is typically what they were paying for premium in 1969. 0 -
Kalifornia is a dim bulb. Danielle 0 -
Kristov - please check your newspaper... the Soviet Union no longer exists. 0 -
Our local Bi-Mart membership store has the CFL bulbs priced at less than $3.00 for a 4 pack.They take a minute to warm up,but the 100 watt ones are bright.
XXXXXX0 -
The escalating demands for electricity are not because of incandescent bulbs by any stretch.
In the last ten years, how many more PC's, peripheral device power supplies, air conditioners, swamp coolers, heaters, cordless power tool chargers, printers, cell phone battery chargers, projection TV's, large flat screen TV's, steroe systems, kitchen appliances, toaster ovens and coffemakers, microwaves, satellite radios, electronic video games, etc., etc. etc. have made their way into more and more American homes?
If the U.S. population has increased to 300 million - fom 200 million 40 years ago, let's ask ourselves how much more electricity is produced for growth alone?
The demand for electricity will never decrease and the power plants will still produce a constant minimum POTENTIAL whether we use it or not.
What about electronic scoreboards, state-of-the-art marquees and billboards, light rail systems, commuter trains, bridges, tunnels, airports, office buildings, security lighting, street lighting, traffic lights, etc.?
CFL's are simply not going to work in many applications. Even a brief warm-up period is unacceptable in many critical situations. And, what about their reliability/durability in outside use in all kinds of climates?
What about the longterm impact of CFL on the human eye? Mood? The environmental impact from disposing of CFL's en mass in landfills?
Another stumblebum politician with a half-baked, hair-brained idea.
Incandescent bulbs are definitely not the problem but bozo politicians certainly are.0 -
Yup.
D.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
27 comments